Jigsaw Homes Group Limited (202508313)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 3-bedroom house with her 2 children. The resident and her children have vulnerabilities that are known to the landlord. Between February 2023 and April 2025, the resident reported recurring damp and mould issues in her home. Therefore, she asked the landlord to consider granting a management move.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of damp and mould.
   2. Request for a management move.
   3. Concerns about staff conduct.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
   2. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a management move.
   3. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.
   4. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

5. We have found that the landlord:
   1. Unreasonably delayed in completing some repairs that it identified during its damp and mould inspections.
   2. Responded appropriately to the resident’s request for a management move and her concerns about staff conduct.
   3. Did not follow its complaints policy when handling a new complaint raised by the resident.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

What we did not investigate

6. The resident told us that the landlord’s handling of the repairs had negatively impacted on her family’s physical and mental health. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of an injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

What we did investigate

7. The tenancy agreement says that:
   1. The landlord will keep in good repair the external and internal structure of the property, including plasterwork and walls.
   2. In certain circumstances, the landlord may need to provide the resident with temporary accommodation while repairs are carried out. During this period, the resident will remain the legal tenant of the property and must return when requested to do so.
   3. The resident must provide the landlord with access to the property for inspections or repair work, provided the landlord gives at least 24 hours’ notice.
8. The landlord’s repairs procedure states it will carry out repairs within the following timescales:
   1. Emergency repairs (health/safety risk, structural damage) – 24 hours.
   2. Urgent repairs (discomfort, likely to worsen) – 5 working days.
   3. Routine repairs (including ventilation faults, mould washes) – 15 working days.
   4. Non-routine repairs (complex work, damp prevention) – 90 working days.
9. The landlord’s damp and mould policy says that when a resident reports damp and mould, it will determine the severity and type of issue affecting the tenant and property. It further states that if an issue is recurring because of condensation, it may offer residents advice, supply aids to control moisture levels, and install positive pressure or passive ventilation systems so that moisture levels can be reduced.
10. The resident first reported damp and mould on 9 February 2023, with an inspection initially scheduled for 4 April 2023. However, the landlord proactively brought the appointment forward after learning of the resident’s concerns about her son’s breathing difficulties. This demonstrated a responsive and considerate approach to the resident’s circumstances.
11. The inspection took place on 16 February 2023. During the appointment, the landlord identified a “small amount” of mould growth in the bathroom, bedrooms and kitchen that was thought to be caused by high humidity levels and condensation. Following the inspection, the evidence shows that the landlord:
    1. Completed 3-stage mould treatments in the some of the affected rooms, within its target timescales. However, it failed to treat the mould in the kitchen. This was inappropriate.
    2. Unblocked the guttering at the front of the property within its target timescales.
    3. Attempted to install a new extractor fan in the bathroom on several occasions. As it was unable to gain access, it wrote to the resident on 7 July 2023 and asked her to confirm her availability for an appointment. We have seen no documentary evidence that the resident responded.
12. On 24 October 2023, the resident contacted the landlord about a vacant property in her desired area. Within her email she also said that her son had experienced 3 asthma attacks that year, which she felt had been caused by the damp and mould in her property. On 26 October 2023, the landlord appropriately responded to the resident’s property enquiry. However, it failed to acknowledge her concerns about the damp and mould. In this instance, it would have been appropriate for it to seek further details and arrange an inspection to address the issues.
13. Between November 2023 and September 2024, we have seen no evidence that the resident reported any issues about damp and mould in her home. We therefore cannot find that the landlord acted unreasonably during this period.
14. On 3 October 2024, the resident contacted the landlord about her housing application and said that she needed to move due to the financial expense of her daily commute to work and school. She also said that she had been advised by her son’s asthma nurse that she needed to “live properly, as [she] keeps getting damp, which has been whitewashed but will return”. The landlord appropriately inspected the resident’s home 6 working days later, on 11 October 2024.
15. The inspection confirmed that condensation surface moisture was causing mould growth again in the corner of the lounge, and the kitchen and bedroom window reveals. The landlord appropriately provided the resident advice on how to effectively ventilate her home and noted that the following works were required:
    1. A 3-stage mould treatment to all affected areas.
    2. Installation of an extractor fan in the bathroom to increase air circulation.
    3. Installation of passive air vents in all bedrooms and the lounge.
16. Following the inspection, the landlord raised the above works. Its repair records show that it installed the bathroom extractor fan on 1 November 2024, which was timely and appropriate. However, the landlord’s handling of the other repairs was poor. This is because:
    1. It arranged for the mould wash treatment to be undertaken on 24 December 2024. This exceeded the timescales outlined in its procedure (52 working days against a target of 15 working days).
    2. It completed the mould treatment on 8 January 2025 (after this was rearranged at the request of the resident). However, during the appointment it failed to carry out the mould treatment in the kitchen and the resident had to inform the landlord on 21 January 2025 that the works were outstanding. This was an expenditure of her time that was unnecessary.
    3. The landlord’s repair contractor contacted the resident on 29 January 2025 to arrange an appointment to install the passive air vents in the bedrooms and lounge. This was following an interval of 16 weeks, which was inappropriate. We acknowledge that between January 2025 and October 2025 the resident declined these works on multiple occasions, citing concerns that the vents might create draughts and negatively impact her son’s medical condition.
17. On 4 April 2025, the landlord carried out a further inspection, which identified damp plaster in the living room. A range of remedial works were recommended to address the issue, and it made several attempts to offer and deliver a dehumidifier to the resident. It is noted that the resident declined each time as she felt it “would not do anything to resolve the condensation”.
18. Following receipt of the MP’s letter and the doctor’s note on 3 April 2025 (which raised concerns about the impact of repairs on the resident’s son’s health), the landlord reviewed the situation internally and offered the resident temporary accommodation while the remedial works were completed. This was a reasonable and appropriate response, in line with the tenancy agreement.
19. In its stage 1 and stage 2 responses, the landlord acknowledged and apologised for failing to address the kitchen mould on 2 occasions (in February 2023 and January 2025). It offered £150 compensation for this specific failure. Although the landlord’s compensation policy does not include a calculation matrix, this offer was reasonable and aligned with our remedies guidance. However, we cannot conclude that reasonable redress was provided overall, as the landlord did not identify or apologise for all the failures outlined in this report.
20. At the time of our investigation, several repairs remained outstanding. We do not underestimate the resident’s concerns about how the remedial works could impact on her son’s respiratory health. However, since issuing its stage 2 response on 28 May 2025, the evidence shows the landlord made reasonable efforts to progress the remedial works and demonstrated a genuine commitment to addressing the resident’s concerns. Examples include:
    1. Although unable to agree to the resident’s request for a 3–4-month temporary relocation during the 2-day remedial works, the landlord extended its hotel offer from 2 nights to 4. Records show the resident declined this offer on 6 June 2025 and again on 22 September 2025.
    2. The landlord provided a detailed explanation of its contractor’s cleaning procedures to minimise dust and offering a fair rationale for why written assurance of a dust-free property could not be given.
    3. It explained how the installation of the passive ventilation system could improve the conditions within the resident’s home.
    4. It undertook further inspections in response to new concerns.
    5. It supplied a dehumidifier to help reduce condensation.
    6. It referred the resident to its money advice team for additional support.
21. We acknowledge that the landlord’s actions following its stage 2 response were fair, appropriate, and resolution focused. However, it did not go far enough to remedy the failures that occurred between February 2023 and January 2025. As a result, we have made a finding of maladministration and ordered the landlord to pay the resident additional compensation. This has been calculated in accordance with our remedies guidance.

What we did not investigate

22. As mentioned earlier in the report, the resident told us that her desired outcome was a management move. While it is not our role to direct landlords on housing stock management, we can assess whether the landlord handled the request in line with its applicable policies and procedures and explained the reasons for its decisions.

What did investigate

23. The landlord’s management move procedure states that each request for a move must be considered on its merits, and a move will only be offered in cases with:
    1. Exceptional circumstances posing imminent risk to health or safety or life.
    2. Extreme financial hardship.
    3. Urgent medical or welfare needs, such as when an occupant awaiting hospital discharge cannot return to the current property as it is not suitable for their needs.
    4. Urgent decant (temporary move) cases where there is disrepair or an emergency such as a fire or flood.
    5. Local authority crisis referrals.
24. On 5 February 2025, the resident asked the landlord if she could discuss her eligibility for a management move. During the telephone call, the landlord appropriately advised her about the housing application process and forwarded a call-back request to the relevant team. Based on the information provided, the landlord’s target timescale for returning call-back requests is unclear. Despite this, we find it acted reasonably when it contacted the resident 5 working days later, on 12 February 2025. During the call, the landlord informed the resident that she was not eligible for a management move, and outlined the alternative options available to her if she wished to relocate. We found no evidence that the landlord acted unreasonably in this instance.
25. On 21 March 2025, the resident again requested consideration for a management move, but the landlord advised she was “not on the list”. On 24 March, she submitted her son’s asthma readings to support her request and later claimed she had been told “by a woman” she would be added to the list. While we do not dispute the resident’s version of events, we have not had sight of any documentary evidence to corroborate her claims. We are therefore unable to make any assessment on this matter.
26. The landlord maintained its position that the resident was not entitled to a management move, reiterating this on 3 April 2025 and in its stage 1 and stage 2 responses.
27. Taking all the above into account, we are satisfied that the landlord handled the resident’s request for a management move in accordance with its procedure, explained the reasons for its decisions, and evidenced that it sought advice from its suitably qualified contractors to confirm that the resident’s home was habitable. For this reason, we have made a finding of no maladministration.

What we did not investigate

28. It is not within our remit to determine if the conduct of a landlord’s staff member did or did not happen as described in a complaint. Instead, it is our role to determine how the landlord responded to the allegations.

What we did investigate

29. Within the landlord’s stage 1 response, it said it had investigated the resident’s concerns about the “rude and unhelpful” staff member by reviewing its internal records from 3 April 2025. It said it had also discussed the telephone call directly with the staff member in question. It concluded that it was satisfied that they had “tried to be helpful” and had provided relevant information during the call. However, it said it was sorry “if she felt unhappy with the nature or outcome” of the call and that it had escalated her concerns to the staff member’s line manager for consideration. These actions were appropriate, and indicated that the landlord took the resident’s concerns seriously and carried out a thorough investigation.
30. Within the resident’s request to escalate her complaint to stage 2 (on 29 April 2025), she expressed her dissatisfaction with the conduct of a different staff member during a telephone call that same day. She alleged that they had refused to escalate her complaint and said that she would not be entitled to a management move “no matter what”.
31. In the landlord’s stage 2 response, it appropriately acknowledged the resident’s concerns but noted the investigation was limited as the call was not recorded. It confirmed that it had reviewed internal records and spoken with the staff member in question, advising they had “correctly” stated that escalating the complaint would not guarantee a management move and clarifying that they did not refuse escalation, as they emailed the complaints team after the call. The landlord apologised to the resident for the upsetting experience but concluded there was insufficient evidence to uphold the complaint.
32. Responding to complaints about staff conduct allows landlords to provide their version of events, apologise if deemed appropriate, and clarify any misunderstandings. Overall, we find that the landlord’s response was reasonable, transparent, and based on the evidence available to it at the time. Its explanation in response to the allegations was clear, and nothing seen in this investigation suggests the landlord reached unreasonable conclusions.
33. For the reasons outlined above, we have made a finding of no maladministration.

34. The landlord has a 2-stage complaints process. At stage 1 it will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days. It aims to respond within 10 working days from the acknowledgement. At stage 2, the landlord will acknowledge an escalation request within 5 working days and aims to provide its final response within 20 working days. This is in line with the requirements of our Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’).
35. Taking into account the bank holidays, the landlord appropriately adhered to its complaint handling timescales at both stages of its complaints process.
36. The landlord’s complaints policy states that where a resident raises any new or unrelated complaints during its investigation and the stage 1 response has already been issued, it will log the issue as a new complaint. While we accept that the landlord had already investigated staff conduct in its stage 1 response, the resident reported a new incident on 29 April 2025. Therefore, despite evidencing that it had conducted a thorough investigation into the resident’s concerns about staff conduct (as explained earlier), it would have been appropriate for the landlord to open a new stage 1 complaint to investigate the matters.
37. For the reasons explained, we have made a finding of service failure.

Learning

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

38. The landlord’s record keeping was generally satisfactory.

Communication

39. Aside from failing to respond to the resident’s concerns about the damp and mould in October 2023, the landlord’s communication with the resident throughout the handling of the substantive issues and complaint was overall positive and timely.